FastMover, you're alright.

 

The first, self-interested response is that if we eat less meat (specifically, less fat) we will live longer. Everybody wants to live longer, right?

It is old (and pretty well-established) ecology knowledge that about 10x as much water, energy, nutrients, land are required to manufacture a useful calorie of plant-food than meat-food.

Meat is tasty, no doubt about it. But if you can still enjoy meals with a little bit less, the 10x thing gives you a lot of leverage to reduce resource consumption. So choose your own level, mindfully, and be happy about it.

Happy helps longevity too

DAS

 

Must agree with FastMover in terms of the shades of gray that we should all respect and acknowledge. I think the 'Moderation in all things' is Aristotle. and Tochatihu, I think you have the 10:1 ratio reversed if you check your language- you say that ten times as much water is required to make plant food than meat, when I think you mean exactly the opposite.

 

Agreed. Everything we do is "bad for the envoronment". Have you seen the bumper sticker that says "save the planet, kill yourself"? Ugh!

 

"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!"
I don't know about you but I want pudding!

 

Because we live in a sound-bite society that doesn't countenance arguments that allow for shades of gray or shades of grey.

I personally don't think it's about telling someone they are or aren't an environmentalist as much as it is educating people. You can suggest to people they ought to purchase a hybrid... they might not know they have the option. But trying to explain how it works first without a "hook" introducing them to why they might care doesn't work. What PETA prez Newkirk is saying is, "hey, look, here's something you can do for the environment. Maybe you need to think about it before saying you're an environmentalist, because it's a way to make a big positive impact on the earth" in a sound-bite, controversial and discussion provoking way. It sounds preachy and elitist, but any idea communicated in a nutshell always does. Actually, if you've got a fast way of communicating these kinds of ideas, I'd love to hear it.


While in an absolute sense you're correct about trade-offs... I never cared for Aristotle (I'm more a Plato fan). For example, moderation in all things? Moderation in nuclear waste? Moderation in dioxin, mercury, lead, recombinant bovine growth hormone consumption? Moderation in a war in Iraq? There's things we can do without any of.

I stayed out of the debate for a long time because I've been vegan for 13 years, but I just wanted to throw these things out there. If you take the moderate approach, it's easy for the point to be missed.

 

Yet even these you mention have time relative trade-offs. Today avoiding nuclear waste is a no-brainer, but what about 100 or 200 years from now if "we the people (global sense)" are so stupid as to not develop other alternatives to fossil fuel -- nuclear waste or total distruction of the atmosphere is not so simple!

The deeper we back ourselves into a corner, the more unpleasant the alternatives become, so you are correct to state that a calculated amount of screaming may be necessary to convince the utterly opposed hardcore elements. However, it must be carefully calculated to warn and convince and not to threaten and harden unreasonable or uneducated positions. If we fail when we say "the sky is falling", guess what -- the sky will fall! Lack of foresight on their part is just as fatal to us.

Instead of moderation, perhaps prudence is a better term. A gut reaction, even if it looks good, to the kind of problems presented by Global Warming, depletion of fuel sources, and self-toxification can present new problems that are more painful than the original one. A hasty response with an unconsidered answer to uninformed, emotionally charged criticism even if irresponsible can be equally fatal in the long run.

Staying out because your a vegan? That sounds like someone making a considered response and weighing the consequences of such a response. And that sounds like a moderated (or prudent) response which is more to my point.

 

This is an amusing thread. I went back and read it all.

The REAL solution is we need fewer people!!!
If there were fewer people ( or if we just level off and stay the same ) everything will be fine.

Everyone dies. One mom and one dad die per generation.
Therefore, if everyone did their civic duty and had two children, then the planet would be in a steady state, and nearly all problems would be solved.
If there were a "permit" process to have a third child, and it could be done by random lottery, then that would make-up for women who have 1 or zero children.
The U.S. and most modern nations are doing a pretty good job with 2.1 to 2.5 children per household. We need to stay close to 2.1 on average.
The 0.1 makes up for childhood deaths, and mothers who have 1 child ( or zero for whatever reason ).

Any mothers who have more than 2 healthy children are doing the planet a dis-service. You cannot play the game "oh, my 3rd might grow up to be the doctor who cures cancer." You simply cannot do that. If your two children do not grow up and cure cancer, you must leave it up to someone else. Also, just because you got 2 boys in a row, does not mean you are entitled to try for a girl on the third. This is being selfish. This is being greedy. In the near future you may be able to choose the sex of your child in advance, but that opens more ethical debates. Large families mean your family is taking more than its fair share of global resources.

To be a true "globalist" you must also keep children in your family to 2.
If we all did this, there would be energy for everyone, and food for everyone. The planet is not "maxed out" yet, but will be in a few billion more people. Bringing population growth to zero is the key to global, long-term sustainability.

The reason why most religions condemn contraception was due to the fact that prior to the 20th century, some, if not most of your children would probably die before reproductive age. Thus, if you had 8 children, you had a good chance 2 would live. My own grandfather ( 1905-1996 ) was the only child out of nine to make it past age 15. And he, and his siblings were all born in the great-lakes area of the U.S. in the 1890's and 1900's. Not some 3rd world nation. Times have changed. At some point, religions will change also. I hope so. They need to.

Population control will be the answer. It's just talked about much less than hybrid cars and CF bulbs for some reason.

I just read that Global Warming and melting ice will be responsible for 10 additional polar bear deaths this year. 10 deaths from starvation that normally would not have occurred say, 50 years ago. However, 1000 to 1100 polar bears will be killed by Eskimos and other native people this year alone.

Should we get a few billion people to stop driving cars? Or convince a few hundred Eskimos to not shoot polar bears this year??? If we had a global ban on polar bear shooting for ONE YEAR we can wipe out the effects of 100 years of global warming. Just pointing out that things are not aways what they seem. Low Polar Bear populations may not really be from global warming, but from over-hunting. And sometimes a simple solution, such as my one-year hunting ban is the best idea. I say build the Eskimos a Taco Bell, and save the Polar Bears! ( a joke, but I hope you get my point )
-J

 

Population growth issues have been solved for developed countries. Most (US included) grow only because of immigration. Limiting children is far more draconian than outlawing ICEs in cars, banning coal for power etc. And talk about economic repurcussions - it is hard to have a vibrant economy without a labor force....

At the same time- I agree with you - it would be great to see the world population stop growing today from an environmental standpoint. It will happen - recent history shows us that as you educate women and decrease infant and child mortality - they will have less children.

The "problem" is not in the U.S. or Europe so you will achieve little by talking about it (in English on this forum). The problem that you can fix is people in rich countries who are wasting resources.

FWIW - in my world - the average fertility rate is less than 2. I am 37 and live in NC - I know plently of couples having zero children and very few having more than 2. The white U.S. fertility rate is probably close to 1.7

 

Should we have "child credits"? If I only want to have one kid, can I sell a credit to some Mormon?